The deliberative democracy project, in which politics can be governed by rational decision making and the process of public deliberation can be guaranteed to have reasonable outcomes, makes sense only when conditions of ideal discourse prevail. These conditions, however, imply the removal of power relations from discourse; or in other words, they assume that ideal speech situations exist in which discourse is driven communicatively, rather than strategically; a position which must be rejected. One must understand that language use itself is colonized by power. The goal of greater inclusivity through discourse fails to stand up in the face of the undermining of inclusivity by the use of language. What is at stake in the claim that politics is unnecessarily adversarial is the denial of the central role of conflict in politics and collective identity formation. This is the work the concept of hegemony does, as the point of convergence and collapse between objectivity and power. The hegemony of a depoliticized public discourse, that of ‘third way’ politics is that there are correct answers to be had, which politicians are unwilling to take for whatever reason. This is rubbish, the answers in reality become clear only in retrospect (http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/opinion/toobin-government-not-broken/ argues for a similar point, but without being willing to take the final step the argument entails, perhaps the government is not broken, but the point is that social conflict such as #occupywallstreet shows that the polity is not broken. Such movements are properly agonistic rather than adversarial, they still seek to include other members of the polity, unlike an adversarial movement such as the tea party which seeks to expel members from the polity.) And then only because they are now historically imperative. This concept mirrors Foucault’s description of human history:

Humanity does not gradually progress from combat to combat until it arrives at universal reciprocity, where the rule of law finally replaces warfare; humanity installs each of its violences in a system of rules and thus proceeds from domination to domination… Rules are empty in themselves, violent and unfinalized; they are impersonal and can be bent to any purpose… [I]nterpretation is the violent or surreptitious appropriation of a system of rules, which in itself has no essential meaning, in order to impose a direction, to bend it to a new will, to force its participation in a different game. (Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews)

All language, and by extension politics, is warfare by other means.

Without the presence of the Lacanian master signifier, the signifier of symbolic authority founded only on itself, language has no meaning. The introduction of the master signifier to discourse distorts the symbolic field by introducing the intrinsic violence of language, which is generated by clashes over what constitutes appropriate language use, and who can use it, without which the entire symbolic field would evaporate. Similarly, the same violence is perpetrated, for example when some events are deemed worthy of public attention while others are marginalized through a refusal to acknowledge them. However, if the violent, authoritarian, master-signifier were removed from the symbolic field, then the field itself would vanish.

One must acknowledge the existence of power relations and the desire to alter how power is allocated, but perhaps more importantly one must renounce the illusion that we can ever be completely free from power. The complete dissolution of all power is a naive goal, one must instead see that power is constitutive of human relations and what is contingent is how it is used and by whom it is held. Of course protestors at #occupywallstreet will hold different goals, we already understand that every consensus is merely the temporary result of a provisional hegemony, that is, nothing more than a stabilization of power in the moment which can just as easily fracture the next. When establishment groups joined the protest after 2 weeks what effect can be expected? Will this lead to increased resolve, will the strategic rationality of large organizations give power to the movement, or will it undermine the truly radical potential? These mainstream groups joining the protest provide legitimacy but the ability to speak always already represents recourse to systems of power that give one the authority to speak, and to require the other to listen. By gaining legitimacy in this way the movement gives up part of its status as “outside” the order. To this point, many claims are made that the protestors are just children with nothing better to do, or only the unemployed; but isn’t it obvious that those are exactly the people who capitalism has most let down. The future that past generations have been able to count on is not available to today’s youth, and of course the high rate of unemployment is a symptom of the economic situation. If these are not the voices we should hear, the voices of those most affected, then who should we turn to.

The question is if such a political move is capable of building up a broad coalition of support without diluting its message too far. Will’s recent post brilliantly argues that the true meaning of the protest can be read off from its many messages, that is a disillusionment with the capitalist hegemony. One can read the endless interrogations by commenters online about how the protest is unguided and ask how can they not see the common theme, the solution which is already evident in the protest, but such a question comes about only after making the subjective determination as the one’s role. If one has already committed themselves to such a change then the question is obvious, but for one who still holds onto the ideological blinders of the prevailing hegemony how can such a solution ever appear ready-at-hand? Such a solution is already part of the counter-hegemony (that is a new hegemony, not a naive anti-hegemonic stance).

EDIT: Another interesting post by Daniel Drezner, at Foreign Policy, which moves in a similar manner to my argument, went up several hours after this post went live, for more check it out.

alright…..so there are a couple of “replies” i would like to give. First and foremost is that, in general, I feel as if, once again, you and I are simply going to bicker of details and be alright with the main points. However there are two things that I really do want to point out.
One, the discussion of language as “violent” is something that we have had and that i agree with, though i have always disliked the notion of calling something that is supposed to bring about understanding and peace as violent. The solution is happened upon by you in this post. “Such movements are properly agonistic rather than adversarial” to me seems an excellent description of language as well. It makes more sense to describe language, and be necessary function politics, is ideally agonistic. it isn’t that people are trying to destroy others when they communicate, but rather that they wouldn’t be saying anything if they didn’t believe in what they were saying.
Two, the idea of questioning whether a movement is better off with or without mainstream assistance depends on what you are going for i think. The basic premise of what you are arguing for in politics would be that all the people that agree on someone get together to fight for it. so it would seem from that perspective the more the merrier. however there is a slight flaw in that if looked from another perspective. the way group dynamics/human beings in general works is that, and i hate to be cliche here, all humans are snow flakes. unique idiosyncratic little bubbles of thought, context, and perspective. now the odds of two people completely agreeing on some ideal and the course of action to achieve that idea is pretty low. the odds of 2000, lower. once you get into the millions it starts being so close to impossible it functionally is. The point being is means to an end, is it worth it? the more people and organizations behind a movement the better odds the movement is heard and something is done about it, but it also causes a generalization of the ideals of the individuals within that movement. so the question is this; is the generalization worth getting something done?

That is actually almost exactly my point. There is a trade-off to be had between mass participation and unity of message. I’m not sure I would take issue with anything you’ve presented, even semantically.

That’s an intriguing idea to me. Can a group or event be a/the Real? Isn’t it experienced already, and therefore already a part of the symbolic order, yet without any definite meaning yet, or more accurately, with a fractured symbolic meaning fitting within different frameworks differently? i.e. One can view it as a disorderly collection of the uninvolved with little meaning or as a decentralized network of radical opposition to the prevailing hegemony.

I would have to lean towards (and just to be clear im not quite as up to snuff with lacanian theory as i probably should be to make this statement so correct me if I’m wrong) the fact that it is already defined. The main point of the #occupywallstreet seemed to be that they didnt have a plan but were just upset and that the goal was to come together and make their political manifesto, for lack of a better phrase, once they were all together. they still dont quite know what their “concrete” goals are but they have already achieved their main goal which seemed to be to exist in the first place. The symbolic meaning of the movement is that it does not have a finite definition, rather that people are simply upset with something and they need that emotion to be expressed in such a way that no one can ignore it. In other words the name “occupy wall street” is also the goal, i think they are doing a fine job of defining themselves as far as that is concerned.

“One can view it as a disorderly collection of the uninvolved with little meaning or as a decentralized network of radical opposition to the prevailing hegemony.”

“Decentralized network” helps me visualize things much better. The key benefit to thinking of the protests as a decentralized network (a federalism?) is the crucial implication that these points of radical opposition are distinct **yet connected.**